Advice welcomed - Popla appeal rejected, solicitors letter received

bunzee

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Is this the same PCN you got a very poor decision from POPLA on last year? If so how did you go on with the complaint to the Lead Adjudicator requesting the decision to be reviewed as per C-M's suggestions at the time?

The letter does seem to me to be a real Letter Before Action but see what others more familiar with Gladstones think.

In the meantime would suggest you have a read of the LBCCC fightback thread linked below. I believe Practice Directions on Pre-Action Conduct have been updated recently so the thread, although still relevant in the overall advice contained, may not refer to current version - so check any references against current version.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4754020

Would probably also be useful to read the sticky NEWBIES thread post #5 which deals with Court Claims - just in case they do take this further

I'm embarrassed to say I wrote a letter to send to the Lead Adjudicator and for some reason I never sent it - everything went quiet and I wrongly thought they'd decided not to persue me... I now realise that the head in the sand approach wasn't sensible!

Thanks for the links/posts - I'll get reading.

ColliesCarer wrote: »

Yep - I agree.
And the witness statement that only confirms they can issue PCN's.

@bunzee - hope you kept all the paperwork from their evidence pack

Yup - just checked and I still have all of the correspondance from the appeal.

salmosalaris

Correct me if Im wrong but you haven't offered to reimburse the real loss of £12 ?

Dear CP Plus
Re PCN xxxxx

I am in receipt of your letter before claim . The only genuine loss in this situation is the inadvertently unpaid parking tariff of £12 .
I enclose a cheque for £15 in full and final settlement of this matter to cover the parking tariff and your administrative costs in contacting me.
For the avoidance of doubt if you cash this cheque it is on the understanding that you accept it as full and final settlement of the matter. If this is not acceptable please return my cheque and I will defend your claim robustly should you issue a County Court Claim with particular reference but not exclusively to paragraphs 44 onwards of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis
I expect a reply within 14 days

Yours

bazster

Assuming this is the same case any reply to the LBC could perhaps contain these points:

Any case brought by you or your client will be vigorously defended.

Should you proceed with court action I will include as evidence in my defence the documents provided to PoPLA by CP Plus when I appealed this charge.

These documents show inter alia that the basis of CP Plus' claim is that the sum demanded represents a genuine pre-estimate of loss; this clearly distinguishes the case from ParkingEye vs. Beavis, in which it is common ground that the charge is a penalty.

Nevertheless should you invoke Beavis I will request a stay pending the handing down of the Beavis judgment, expected in the autumn.

The breakdown of their GPEOL provided to PoPLA by your client contains many items which I will challenge and which clearly constitute an after-the-fact attempt to justify their arbitrary charge. It is not in any sense a genuine pre-estimate of loss.

CP Plus is merely the land occupier's agent and I dispute that it has the standing to bring claims in its own right. Accordingly I require you to provide me with an unredacted copy of your client's contract with the land occupier. Should you fail or refuse to provide this I will make it the subject of a Part 18 request.


But hold fire and see what others suggest

bazster

salmosalaris wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but you haven't offered to reimburse the real loss of £12 ?

Dear CP Plus
Re PCN xxxxx

I am in receipt of your letter before claim . The only genuine loss in this situation is the inadvertently unpaid parking tariff of £12 .
I enclose a cheque for £15 in full and final settlement of this matter to cover the parking tariff and your administrative costs in contacting me.
For the avoidance of doubt if you cash this cheque it is on the understanding that you accept it as full and final settlement of the matter. If this is not acceptable please return my cheque and I will defend your claim robustly should you issue a County Court Claim with particular reference but not exclusively to paragraphs 44 onwards of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis
I expect a reply within 14 days

Yours

<chuckle> Can a PPC resist cashing a cheque for any amount? We'll see...

bazster

bunzee, expert help may be available for this, but it'll only work if you are up for the fight. Are you prepared to go all the way, to a court hearing if necessary? This is important, the experts are volunteers and will not waste their time on someone who might bottle it!

bunzee

salmosalaris wrote: »

Correct me if Im wrong but you haven't offered to reimburse the real loss of £12 ?

Dear CP Plus
Re PCN xxxxx

I am in receipt of your letter before claim . The only genuine loss in this situation is the inadvertently unpaid parking tariff of £12 .
I enclose a cheque for £15 in full and final settlement of this matter to cover the parking tariff and your administrative costs in contacting me.
For the avoidance of doubt if you cash this cheque it is on the understanding that you accept it as full and final settlement of the matter. If this is not acceptable please return my cheque and I will defend your claim robustly should you issue a County Court Claim with particular reference but not exclusively to paragraphs 44 onwards of the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of Parking Eye v Beavis
I expect a reply within 14 days

Yours

You're correct, I haven't... I'm guessing it's gone a bit far for that now?

bazster wrote: »

bunzee, expert help may be available for this, but it'll only work if you are up for the fight. Are you prepared to go all the way, to a court hearing if necessary? This is important, the experts are volunteers and will not waste their time on someone who might bottle it!

I think I need to have a good read of what that would entail before I commit... for the principle of it I'd love to take it up but at the same time I just don't want to end up paying even more.

Marktheshark

It is not correct in that it is not signed by a person.
The letter is also not compliant with the SRA code of practice as it has not been signed by a legally trained person, unless there is a solicitor who,s name is Gladstone Solicitors
A letter sent on behalf of a solicitor must have the name and position and the person sending the letter or be signed on behalf of a senior partner .
Such as PP on behalf of "fred Blogs" Senior partner.
The letter is also misleading in that they are acting as a collection agent under Credit services Association firm GSL collection yet making Legal threats.

Forward the letter to the SRA complaints.
They pretend to be stupid so you will have to point out what you think is wrong.
Sending debt collection letters from a collection company whilst mimicking a LBC from a solicitor but not actually signed by a solicitor.
Therefore you are unable to decipher if they have sent you a pre-action protocol LBC or a debt collecting letter.
The demand is confusing and misleading and the senior partner should be made responsible for sending unsigned letters.
http://www.sra.org.uk/consumers/problems/report-solicitor.page#how-report-sra

bazster

bunzee wrote: »

I think I need to have a good read of what that would entail before I commit... for the principle of it I'd love to take it up but at the same time I just don't want to end up paying even more.

Not sure what you are expecting to read.

The claim is what it is, they can't increase it now except to add the court fee (£25) and a very small amount in costs (£50 max).

Someone might contact you but I suspect you'll need to show considerably more fight than this for someone to volunteer to represent you!

bazster

Marktheshark wrote: »

A letter sent on behalf of a solicitor must have the name and position and the person sending the letter or be signed on behalf of a senior partner .

What is your source for this?

Marktheshark wrote: »

The letter is also misleading in that they are acting as a collection agent under Credit services Association firm GSL collection yet making Legal threats.

The letter clearly states it is from Gladstones Solicitors Ltd. The only mention of gsl collections is in a web URL, which is pretty irrelevant really.

salmosalaris

bunzee wrote: »

You're correct, I haven't... I'm guessing it's gone a bit far for that now?
.

It is never too late but this may be better handled off forum
Send me a PM if you want help